Melinda Thybault, Founder of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nos. 18-1323, 18-1460, VIDED ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L.L.C., et al., Petitioners, v. DR. REBEKAH GEE, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DR. REBEKAH GEE, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Cross-Petitioner, v. JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L.L.C., on behalf of its patients, physicians, and staff, d/b/a HOPE MEDICAL GROUP FOR WOMEN; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2, Cross-Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writs Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF MELINDA THYBAULT, FOUNDER OF THE MORAL OUTCRY PETITION, INDIVIDUALLY AND ACTING ON BEHALF OF 264,500 SIGNERS OF THE MORAL OUTCRY PETITION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT AND CROSS-PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ALLAN E. PARKER, JR. Counsel of Record for Amicus Curiae R. CLAYTON TROTTER THE JUSTICE FOUNDATION 8023 Vantage Drive, Suite 1275 San Antonio, TX 78230 (210) 614-7157 [email protected] ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ........................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................... 5 While This Case Can Be Upheld Under Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart, Legally, Roe v. Wade Should Be Reversed At This Time Under the Law of Judicial Precedent ....... 5 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 8 1. Safe Haven Laws, Like Louisiana’s, Render Abortion Obsolete and Constitute a Major “Change in Circumstances.” Therefore, They are a “Sound and Necessary” Reason to Reverse Roe, Doe, and Casey Under The Law of Judicial Precedent. Louisiana’s Safe Haven Law Meets the Unwanted Child Care Needs of Women Without Killing “In- fant Life” (See Gonzales), or Injuring the Woman With Abortion Trauma. Thus Act 620 Does Not Constitute An “Undue Bur- den” Since All “Burden” of Unwanted Child Care is Transferred From the Woman to Society .......................................................... 8 2. Roe, Doe, and Casey Are Truly a Crime Against Humanity Like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. This Also Constitutes “Severe Criticism” of the Decisions Which is a “Sound and Necessary” Reason Under the Law of Judicial Precedent to Reverse Them ............................................................. 14 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page 3. Why is There a Shortage of Hospital Admit- ted, Well-Credentialed Doctors Willing to Perform Abortions In Louisiana? Because Abortion is a Crime Against Humanity. The Reason for the Shortage of Abortionists Lies Not in the Law, But in the Inherent Nature of Abortion Itself .......................................... 17 4. Abortion Hurts Women. A Unanimous Su- preme Court, Planned Parenthood and Abor- tion Business Owners Admit That Abortion is “Painful and Difficult” for Women ........... 19 5. “Sound and Necessary” Reasons to Reverse Roe, Doe, and Casey Exist Independently Under the Law of Judicial Precedent on Grounds That Would Warrant Such a Course Even if the Makeup of the Court Had Remained Unchanged .......................... 21 6. This Case Graphically Demonstrates the “Unworkability” of the “Undue Burden” Analysis, Specifically Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, But also Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey ............................................................ 27 7. Two Million People Are Waiting To Adopt Newborn Children Every Year Which is a “Major Change in Circumstances” Under the Law of Judicial Precedent ..................... 28 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page 8. In 1973, the Court Stated, “At This Point in the Development of Man’s Knowledge” the Judiciary Could Not “Speculate” When Hu- man Life Begins. Now, Science Clearly Demon- strates That Life Begins at Conception. New Scientific Advances Justify Changing Prior Precedent Under Stare Decisis .................... 29 CONCLUSION ....................................................... 31 PRAYER .................................................................. 33 APPENDICES A. The Moral Outcry Petition ........................... App. 1 B. Doctor’s Note ................................................. App. 4 C. Photo of Gideon Wilberforce Thybault as an Embryo .................................................... App. 5 D. Photo of Gideon Wilberforce Thybault ......... App. 6 E. Photo of Embryo John Booker Thybault ....... App. 7 F. Photo of Embryo Isaac Jonathan Thybault........................................................ App. 8 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Boys Mkts., Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235 (1970) .......................................... 27 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) .......................................................... 15, 31 Cano (Doe) v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................ 23 Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) ...................... passim Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) ............ 12, 14 Henslee v. Union Planters Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 335 U.S. 595 (1949) .......................................... 27 Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) ........... passim Kristina Box, Commissioner, Indiana Depart- ment of Health, et al. v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., et al. (Docket 18- 483) (cert. denied) .................................................... 14 McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004) (cert. denied) ............................................................ 23 MKB Management Corp., et al. v. Wayne Sten- ehjem, et al., 795 F.3d 768 (2015) ...................... 21, 22 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ............................................................... passim Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) .......................................................... 31 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) ...................... 15 Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) .......................... 26 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ........................ passim Self v. Bennett, 474 So.2d 673 (Ala. 1985) .................. 27 Somerset v. Stewart, Loff, 1, King’s Bench, Geo. 3, 1772 ..................................................................... 25 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 790 F.3d 563 (2016) ................................................................ 20 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. amend. I ..................................................... 2 STATUTES Ala. Code §§ 26-25-1 to -5 ............................................. 9 Alaska Stat. §§ 47.10.013, .990 .................................... 9 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3623.01 ................................ 9 Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-34-201, -202 ................................. 9 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1255.7............................. 9 Cal. Penal Code § 271.5 ................................................ 9 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-304.5 ......................................... 9 Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 17a-57, -58 .................................... 9 Del. Code. Ann. tit. 16, §§ 902, 907-08 .......................... 9 D.C. Code §§ 4-1451.01 to .08 ....................................... 9 Fla. Stat. § 383.50 ......................................................... 9 Ga. Code Ann. §§ 19-10A-2 to -7 ................................... 9 Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§ 587D-1 to -7 ................................. 9 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Idaho Code Ann. §§ 39-8201 to -8207 ........................... 9 325 Ill. Comp. Stat. 2/10, 2/15, 2/20, 2/27 ..................... 9 Ind. Code § 31-34-2.5-1 ................................................. 9 Iowa Code §§ 233.1, .2 .................................................. 9 Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-2282 ............................................. 9 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 216B.190, 405.075 ..................... 9 La. Child. Code Ann. arts. 1149-53 .................. 9, 10, 11 Me. Rev. Stat. tits. 17-A, § 553, 22 § 4018 .................... 9 Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-641 ..................... 9 Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 119, § 39 1/2 ............................... 9 Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 712.1, .2, .3, .5, .20 ..................... 9 Minn. Stat. §§ 145.902, 260C.139, 609.3785 ................ 9 Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-15-201, -203, -207, -209 ............ 9 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 210.950 ................................................ 9 Mont. Code Ann. §§ 40-6-402 to -405 ........................... 9 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-121 ................................................ 9 Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 432B.160, .630 ................................. 9 N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 132-A:1 to :4 ............................ 9 N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 30:4C-15.6 to -15.10 ........................ 9 N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-22-1.1, -2, -3, -8 ......................... 9 N.Y. Penal Law §§ 260.00, .10 .....................................